Slashdot Log In
Lessig Predicts Cyber 9/11 Event, Restrictive Laws
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Aug 05, 2008 05:56 PM
from the waiting-for-the-other-shoe dept.
from the waiting-for-the-other-shoe dept.
A number of readers are sending in links to a video from the Fortune Brainstorm Tech conference last month, in which Lawrence Lessig recounts a conversation over dinner with Richard Clarke, the former government counter-terrorism czar. Remembering that the Patriot Act was dropped on Congress just 20 days after 9/11 — the Department of Justice had had it sitting in a drawer for years — Lessig asked Clarke if DoJ had a similar proposed law, an "i-Patriot Act," to drop in the event of a "cyber-9/11." Clarke responded, "Of course they do. And Vint Cerf won't like it." Lessig's anecdote begins at about 4:30 in the video.
Related Stories
Submission: Lessig Predicts Cyber 9/11 Event, Restrictive Laws by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Just wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)
P2P and freedom of speech in one blow, what could be better?
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Which will hopefully, in turn, force us to create a better network. And perhaps we can start again and this time try to avoid Eternal September.
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:4, Funny)
me too!
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Just wait ... (Score:1, Insightful)
by mvh (9295) on Tuesday August 05, @07:07PM (#24488549) Homepage
Which will hopefully, in turn, force us to create a better network. And perhaps we can start again and this time try to avoid Eternal September. ... (Score:2, Funny)
Reply to This Parent
Re:Just wait
by chris_mahan (256577) on Tuesday August 05, @07:09PM (#24488593) Homepage
me too!
--
"Piter, too, is dead."
Me too!!!!
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Until the majority of people recognize that oppression has become intolerable enough that they become willing to kill or die in order to end it... it's probably not time.
The fact that people generally tolerate things is at least an indication that a call to revolution is not going to succeed.
I know people who have lived under martial law and genuine oppression. I laugh at Americans who seem to actually believe there is a spirit sufficient to outright spark a revolution.
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't just people in their private lives; it's also corporations. You know, the ones that own the government? They like the freedom of the Internet and the ability to communicate securely and freely, because it helps them make money. They've already moved their taxable income to other countries. They can take their servers elsewhere easily if they want. It probably wouldn't take them too long to move the jobs, too, if they had to.
It's not just like they could let big business have exceptions or poke through with VPNs. Countless small businesses fuel the high-tech economy, too, and start up from practically nothing. Think they don't have any clout? What about the investors and banks that profit off of their growth? Some of them are pretty big, and would certainly have mouthpieces in Congress.
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Insightful)
In most revolutions the person or group willing and able to exert the most violence will rise to the top. Thus violent revolutions tend to lead to Dictatorships.
Only an extremely few dictators will promptly relinquish their power to the people.
This is why so many communist countries are actually dictatorships - because Marx put violence in the Communism "implementation plan".
While you have some semblance of democracy you should fix things by voting.
Most of the US people still have the vote (diebold notwithstanding, and for some strange reason many convicted felons don't get to vote).
Given Bush was _reelected_ it is clear to me that the voters do not really object to the policies of the ruling government. Do significant numbers actually vote for some 3rd party in desperation? No.
If people are dissatisfied with both parties they should "throw away" their vote on some other party, rather than keep throwing it at Twiddledum and Twiddledumber. If those votes start to add up, T & T may notice, and so those votes aren't really "thrown away".
Anyone trying to spark a revolution in a somewhat democratic country "for a good cause" is doing the wrong thing.
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why are so many people so keen on a revolution?
The problem is intellectuals (defined as "people who think they can do better", or, only partly joking people who think "if everybody did what I say there would be world peace"). We both know slashdot is rife with them.
They have the big problem that Joe Schmoe cares for exactly what you'd think he cares for : his ability to drive his/her car as far as he wants. Food, luxurious food, a big house, toys, children ... and that's it. (Or as Barack O states they care for "guns and religion", which is not true, they care for getting their ass comfortable, guns and religion simply help too much to give up)
So a democracy will always be in favor of increased private spending, and increased energy usage, which today means "more co2 release". Which is the very antithesis of most "progressive" (socialist/communist) policies. Let's not forget that it's "progressives" (albeit not American ones, though it did include many European ones) that engineered the USSR famines, and for example China's one child policy is also of progressive making (the Nazi's, also socialists, had similar measures).
This is NOT to say that they're nazi or communist, but it is beyond obvious when listening to Barack O. or Al Gore that what they really want to do is massive, involuntary social re-engineering (whether it's energy usage, "tolerance" as defined by giving money to the day's "popular victims", or "genetic purity" (which was big in socialist circles between 1920 and, well 1960-70, google for "eugenics movement"), they want to re-engineer the whole of society to fit their image of an ideal society). These people are also responsible for the current Iranian government AND for the ascent of power of people like Saddam Hussein (and they were in favor of them on many occasions, why ? Because of their political leanings. Those little details of genocides like the halabja campaign of Iraq, or the recently "impossible to locate anywhere" marsh arabs of Iran, are but pesky problems that can be ignored for the "greater purpose")
The problem is beyond obvious : they expect economical sacrifices of Joe Schmoe, which they will never get from him/her voluntary.
So without violence, the ultimate, massively irrefutable argument, their policies won't be implemented. However they are intellectuals : in an open fight ... they lose (and lose big, as cannot be illustrated more thoroughly by the events in Iran in 1972. First progressives overthrew the government. Next the government started executing gays. Something must have gone wrong. It's easy to find out what exactly went wrong : the terrorism of khomeini).
It should be obvious to even the 5 year old daughter of Obama that the energy reductions necessary to reduce carbon output will NEVER be implemented voluntary. The other idea of the green movement, "limiting population", you can guess how much enthousiasm people will have for that one. Some of the greens, by the way, are discussing genocide in order to implement this, though fortunately it's the lunatic fringe for the moment.
This is why so many communist countries are actually dictatorships - because Marx put violence in the Communism "implementation plan".
While you have some semblance of democracy you should fix things by voting.
But the solutions of the socialists (and the greens these days) are utter disasters for the common man.
Reducing co2 output is painful. VERY painful. It will never really happen in a democracy. And before you state that Europe proves otherwise, I'd like you to check 2 little details : ... or not ? (the commission is the lawgiving instrument of the EU, not the parliament, as you might think. Again, google this) ...
-> who has the power in the EU ? Does the composition of that body make the EU democratic
-> exactly how many coal fired power plants are being constructed in the EU ? Zero right ? Oh wait
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Informative)
The average state tax on gasoline in the United States was 28.6 cents per gallon in the first quarter of 2008. During the same period the gasoline tax in Germany was 7.6 dollars per gallon and 5.2 dollars per gallon in the United Kingdom.
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems to be overly-cynical. People aren't bad at adopting new things, they just need a motivator:
Wow, the things Microsoft have taught me. Thanks Bill! Anyway, getting back to the point, the biggest risk to an improved network, is that legislation may be created to stop it being used. Most people are willing to bend the law a little, but not break it.
Incidentally, who was the bloke speaking after Lessig? He had some very good points about how the Internet on mobiles isn't taking off because of the huge fees carriers are demanding, and the assumption by venture capitalists that the Internet 'just works' by itself. Very insightful comments from him.
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fear. Wait for the government to start locking people up/bringing people in for questioning just based on their Internet browsing habits, then make sure everyone knows about it.
if you get to this point it's too late, they can just send anyone found to be using the new network to the gas chambers.
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
vote for Barack Obama, goddamn it (Score:4, Insightful)
At least then we stand a fighting chance of not losing the rest of what once made this country great.
No, I'm voting for Bob Barr [bobbarr2008.com]. Between McCain and Obama I'd vote for Obama, add Hillary to the ticket though and I'd vote for McCain if his running mate isn't too bad. If there wasn't another person running, but there is. McCain scares me but not as much as Hillary does.
We've got a lot of knuckleheads who still need it spelled out for them, thanks to our corporate media and Republican party that likes to manipulate the weakest minds with ugly racism and sexism.
On the other hand there's the Democratic Party, and the mass media that supports it, that wants to turn the country into a nanny state.
For those of us that DO live in the US, remember, nothing short of a landslide victory for Obama is going to keep the tin-pot dictators of the GOP out of the White House this time.
Yea, who needs the tin-pot, or socialist dictators, when you can have liberty instead by voting for the Libertarian candidate?
Falcon
Parent
Re:vote for Barack Obama, goddamn it (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like people on /. always complain about the two real political parties being the exact same, but never care about it enough to make anyone else care about it.
Voting for someone who shares your opinion on an issue not many people have an opinion on is a step in the right direction, but it's a small one. The real way to get it done is to get a canidate who has a fighting chance to endorse that position.
With stuff like this, writing letters to the editor to raise public awareness are more effective than voting for a canidate who may or may not reach the double digits in the election. There are basically three groups who are interested in restricting the internet: idiot moral nannies, people who work in national security and want you to not think outside the box, and telecoms. All of them are doing more than voting to push their political agendas. What are you doing to counter that? If you're doing nothing besides voting and complaining, you're taking the choices someone else gave you, and shouldn't be suprised when
Parent
Re:vote for Barack Obama, goddamn it (Score:5, Informative)
Bob Barr? You're worried about a nanny state so you want to vote for Bob Barr? The guy wants to control your bedroom and your religion. He led the fight for the Defense of Marriage act (he won that). He led the fight to try and get the Army's first Wiccan Distinctive Faith Group disbanded (he lost that one). He's a real "Christian Nation" kind of guy. He's was a huge supporter of the War on Drugs and opposed to medical marijuana. He's recanted that last bit, I'll admit, but his overall pattern is on of a guy who supports people's liberties only when they fit into his personal moral code.
I like some of his stances, but he has a habit of converting to a a stance in favor of rights only after he has voted to take those rights away. He regrets his PATRIOT act vote, and his medical marijuana work, but it's too late now, he already voted to put them in place. Add tot hat the fact that the Libertarians would demolish the what little control the government still exercises on Corporate America and I have to say Barr scares the Hell out me.
Parent
Bob Barr in presidential debates (Score:4, Interesting)
I've seen him on some of the Sunday morning news shows...and I gotta say, I am quite impressed with him now....I wish to hell he could get included on the 3 'presidential debates'....he can speak quite well, and I'd love to see him actually throw answers out there in the middle of the main parties candidates who love to say nothing so far.
I doubt Barr, or any other presidential candidate, will be invited to participate in many debates McCain and Obama have. Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and David Cobb of the Green Party [reliableanswers.com] were both arrested for trying to enter a debate in 2004. Yet not many people know that because the mass media didn't do their job and let people know.
I think Barr would actually make a good showing, and possibly even force the other two candidates to take some positions, or look like idiots afraid to answer a question...
That's why third party candidates aren't invited. But if the mass media did it's job, of informing people, more people would demand they be allowed to debate.
Falcon
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if you're one of those Fox News wingnuts who just hates the idea of a black man being president,
Would those be the same wingnuts that wanted Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell to run?
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Informative)
What makes you think Obama will be any better? He's already shown us that he thinks national security is more important than the rule of law. But the rule of law is a prerequisite for any kind of security! The fact is, both candidates are part of the authoritarian corporate class.
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure it will happen, but can someone mod parent up at least a half point? I'm not sure Obama is much better than our other choices either, and i donated to his campaign!
Now I understand that "we need to win this one" in a sense. However, I received a call from an Obama fund raiser the other day. I listened calmly to what she had to say and answered her questions (loaded for 'yes' of course). I then proceeded to explain to her that Obama voted for the FISA bill which gives the Telcos retroactive immunity after those companies explicitly broke the law and ignored the 4th Amendment. I told her that Obama has either switched directions on his policies or extended them in a nonsensical way and with what seems like little interest for Americans. I told her that I could not in good conscience vote for Obama, and that I hoped she would research who she supports. She seemed a little crestfallen and stuttered, "Well, oh... I'm really sorry to hear that..." and I said goodbye.
When the ideas Obama starts talking about seem to make very little economic sense (he's against Nuclear power, for instance, or that he wants to release oil from the strategic reserve, or that he wants to have another economic stimulus program) then there's something wrong. It quickly starts to sound like a Democratic Dubya, with a blue hand up his ass instead of a red one. Alarm klaxons scream inside my head and it becomes very tough for me to believe the man.
I just don't know what to do. Who am I supposed to vote for? Voting for an independent does little good. Most of them have even less sense than the current candidates. It may sound ludicrous, but sometimes I get the sinking feeling that the game is already over and it could require a lot of blood and sacrifice to win back the freedoms we've already lost.
Just my two cents, though.
Parent
You have selective memory when it comes to a-holes (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember the War on Drugs (marijuana) was kicked into high gear when Clinton got a general to be his drug czar. Arrest the DOUBLED to the 750,000 a year level they are at now.
I remember then a-hole supreme Clinton haveing the gall to tell Rolling Stone when he left that we should legalize marijuana.
I remember the DMCA, COPA and the democrats giving radio to their buddies at Clearchannel.
I remember that teh democrats last time around bombed more countries than the US. The WMD lies were just as big in kosovo if not bigger since the democrats supported and trained the LARGEST and BEST ARMED terror group in the world according to you own CIA, the albanians drug lords who control the majority of the heroin trade in europe.
I remember seeing wanted criminals from INTERPOL sitting have coffee with our secretary of state. Same wanted terrorists ended up going to the democratic convention in 2004 to pay hommage to their benefactors.
I remember that Bin Laden and thousands of his muhajeddins were working on our side in Bosnia (where we vetoed the first four international peace plans that the two other groups had agreed to) and finding it amusing that no one remembered taht a few yaers later.
I remember working in europe about 10 years ago and seeing 450,000 people in the streets of Athens protesting Clintons visit. I remember a protest march in Rome that had 120,000 protesting the illegal war/bombings in the Balkans, with the news showing the same amount all over europe and the world but no reference of these in our free press.
I remember the two Clintonista women going on their tour of Saudi Arabia clutching their korans
while the Saudis were lavishing their Bosnian muslims brothers with millions for their spread of islam in europe and financing the construction of hundreds of mosques.
I remember that following that prelude to the big lie in Iraq, 3 consecutive Al Quaeda leaders in Saudi Arabia were Bosnian Holy War vets. The last one coming with his bosnian muslim wife and passport.
I remember taht the only arrest for the Madrid bombing was a morroccan traveling from Bosnia or the dozens muslims arrested after 9/11.
I remember that Wesley Clark, a career weasel who got his position through massive forced retirements telling the world that bombing a smal country the size of New Hamphsire was to terrorize the civilians population and to make their lives miserable and a living hell. I remember thinking how fitting that this definition of war criminal was a democratic contender.
I also remember British General Michael Rose biography where he claims to have refused a direct order by Clarke to attack russian troops in Kosovo and that NATO supported him by not suporting any calls for punishment.
I remember secretary of Hate Madeleine Allbright and her belief that the death of hundreds of thousands of iraqui children would have been worth it had they had been able to capture Saddam.
You of course, chose to forget all these things because it is more convenient.
Are the republicans a**holes? Yes. But the democrats are no better. They just work the PR machine a lot better. And a black candidate is great PR. Will he be different he's black?
That's as stupid as that retarded thinking from a few decades ago that women in power would somehow be more compassionate.
Uncle Tom knows where the wind blows and who pays the bills.
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
in a free government, that which is common is legal
On that basis (and many others) the US, UK, Canada and all other "free" nations seem to be heading down the road to tyranny.
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)
> Either every single Supreme Court justice since ever is illiterate
> or they're all evil.
No, four could read "Congress shall make no law..." and understood that McCain Fiengold was clearly infringing. And five managed to parse "shall not be infringed." and rule the DC gun ban out of bounds.
> They just realize the reality of the situation, which is that the
> Bill of Rights is simply wrong in that respect and you need to ignore
> it and get onto more pressing matters.
And now it is clear, we won't be agreeing on much because you serve the forces of darkness. You can't just "ignore" the Bill of Rights and remain a nation of laws. What you pine for is a dictator who will make all of your decisions for you.
And we have the answer to how so many educated Supremes can fail to read the Constituition and not get the right answer. They understand perfectly, but being Socialists they simply don't give a damn what it says.
Note that it IS perfectly acceptable to disagree with the 2nd Amendment, private possession of arms, etc. and still be an American. But you can only do so by first proposing the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Remember that the Founding Fathers were very wise men, but they were not God Kings handing down the law on graven tablets, thus they realized that their laws might need to be adjusted for differing times, and the procedure for Amendments. Done that way it doesn't turn us into a nation of men instead of laws.
Of course you will repeal the 2nd Amendment only after I have fought you to my last breath and last dollar.
Parent
Re:Just wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Constitution disagrees with you. From Article VI, Clause 2:
The Bill of Rights are a part of the Constitution, and hence they are law. They are neither statutory nor regulatory law, and hence do not spell out all the details of what is and is not allowed, but they were never intended to perform that function. Their purpose is to provide a framework within which statutory and regulatory law may be constructed.
Parent
So, who originally wrote it ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who wrote it ? In which administration ? Curious minds want to know.
It was obvious to me in 2001 that this had been previously prepared, and it astounded me that anyone would fall for this BS.
Unfortunately, history indicates they would probably do it again.
Lots of docs, lots of speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
One major political function of these plans is to have PR: look like you can command decisively and keep the population confident in your abilities. Another is to be able to turn these disasters into an opportunity to pass legislation/budget that the people would normally choke on. GWB played both these cards really well.
Parent
And that would basically mean the death of I.T. (Score:5, Insightful)
remember what happened to u.s. tourism after that patriot act shit was dropped in the congress ? u.s. tourism sector NEVER recovered from it.
excuse me but the rest of the world cant take that kind of shit from u.s. again. if that happens, we all will just create another internet, complete with its root dnses (possibly in brussels), and get done with it. and then u.s. broadband, backbone providers can shove the fibers they laid in those senators asses. because they will be good for only doing that afterwards.
Re:And that would basically mean the death of I.T. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah! Let's make our own Internet. With blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the Internet.
And the blackjack.
Ahh, screw the whole thing.
Parent
Re:And that would basically mean the death of I.T. (Score:4, Informative)
The US tourism is recovering now, due to the falling dollar.
Parent
And that would mean the death of I.T. Outsourcing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And that would mean the death of I.T. Outsourci (Score:5, Insightful)
There would be more I.T. security (contract) jobs; someone has to implement the new restrictions.
And in fascist police states, selling jackboots to jackboot-less thugs is a growth sector. The jingle in the pocket doesn't make the boot stamping on a face forever any more palatable.
And, oddly enough, we'd probably still outsource bootmaking. Cuz, you know, face-stomping has to be cost-effective to maximize shareholder value.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Think so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would this be enough to make us move? (Score:5, Interesting)
Over the past eight years or so, I've occasionally ranted, and heard other people rant, about how I/we were just one more liberties-reduction away from moving to Canada, Europe, Antarctica, etc. But we generally just grumble for a while and then get used to the new "normal".
Is this any different? Are there any of us for whom this really *is* the straw that breaks the camel's back?
I just got back from Austria, and I've got to say, it's pretty fsck'ing nice over there.
Re:Would this be enough to make us move? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Godwin Jr's Law (Score:4, Funny)
All sufficiently long forum threads about a policy where the US government might become involved shall include at least one reference to 9/11 and/or Al Qaida.
My internet's down Hoss (Score:3, Interesting)
There are plenty of places out in the country that does well with little internet. Only major cities that depend on external systems and greedy business people will be impacted.
Paranoid Linux is your friend (Score:5, Interesting)
Cyber 9/11? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cyber 9/11? (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's what you could do:
1. Set the fecal chloroform counts for the reservoir monitoring systems at max. SCADA + Internet connection + SBO = Good Times.
2. Set every traffic light to green in all directions (or cycle the lights quickly enough to cause massive accidents)
3. Disrupt the trunking radio system (used by first responders). It's simple to make one, and only obscurity keeps bad guys from making an undetectable jammer. Worse, P25 (new US government mandate) requires Internet connectivity.
4. Overload a few older transformers like in Vancouver two weeks ago.
So what you've got now is the water supply shut off by the sensors, and traffic is so backed up with crashes that the engineers can't get to the site to reset the system. That gives you 2-3 days until people start dying off. Even if you get it fixed in a day, people will fucking panic like Home Depot shoppers in a flyover state.
The police, paramedics, fire, buses, etc can't co-ordinate anything since their radios aren't working.
Then the backup power goes out.
Good times.
Parent
Re:Cyber 9/11? (Score:4, Insightful)
Around here Item #1 requires the guy who is already there 7x24 to double check - yawn
90% of traffic lights are not internet linked - they are dumb mechanical timers - kinda hard to cyber that
P25 - go to talk around mode
Overload the transformers - way easier said than done, but when that usually happens, a breaker pops, you lose a substation - OK, they find the short, away we go
Parent
Anonymous Coward (Score:4, Insightful)
Fear makes people more likely accept restrictions on their freedoms, news at 11.
I'm a brit, born in the seventies. The IRA was part of my life.
Way, Way, Way back before 911 us brits lived with terrorism on a daily basis. Terrorism that was funded via NORAID.
My grandfather nerely died in the early 60s from an IRA bomb in the centre of London during a national exhibition.
In central London, for as long as I have known we have never had refuse bins on our underground system, the reason being 'because if we did, the IRA would put bombs in them'
wtf is going on here?
I can't believe how low we have fallen. Why is the current threat any different from the old threat from the IRA that we faced. (that our friends in the USA funded)
Fsckwits
Parent
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe how low we have fallen. Why is the current threat any different from the old threat from the IRA that we faced.
Simple: Marketing. Your fascist pricks in the 70s didn't go to the same cut-throat business schools as our fascist pricks in the 00's. Our modern fascists are vastly more educated in the art of enhancing and capitalizing on irrational fear.
Parent
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really simple - very few people appriciate something they've always had and never had to fight for. I've never had my civil rights violated, I've never feared the government would come and arrest me if they didn't like me. If someone started to blow up people like me, getting the choice between liberty and security (even if that was an either-or) would be a lousy option. I'd like to turn back time to when I was neither restrained or in danger so I can have my cake and eat it too.
The fall to totalitarianism is a slow one, despite a few things pointed out here and there I don't think we're quite in DDR with STASI and Gestapo just yet. Do you really understand what it means to be without your civil liberties if you haven't experienced it? The founding fathers knew what it meant. Those who fought in the american civil war too, but they are long dead and buried. Yes, I know soldiers went and died in WWII and Korea and Vietnam and Iraq and whereever, but the US people hasn't lived with occupation, war or oppression for close to 150 years now.
I don't claim to be a stellar example, I have some second-hand understanding from talking to people that lived through WWII and the nazi occupation. But I think I at least got a glimpse of what it means not to have the rights I take so for granted. Almost the entire bill of rights is about protecting the people from the government. I really do not think people understand what they do when they insist the government protect them from terrorists, which obviously hide among the people. It seems all good sense of why the government was chained in the first place has been thrown overboard.
Parent
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Insightful)
The terror back then was aimed at you, a person. The terror of today is aimed at high finance and business.
The IRA (together with ETA and Hammas and all the other "old school terrorists") weren't interested in hitting some high profile targets. They just blew up their bombs in trash bins, in (school) busses, in pubs, all places a high profile target (i.e. some rich person) can easily avoid, since the target was the common man. The idea behind terror, you should fear it.
Today's terror has higher aims. There's a reason those planes hit the towers and not some apartment complex. The target was commerce. When a schoolbus explodes, nobody that counts cares. It hits you, your kids, but never him. His kids go to a private school and he has someone drive them there. When his buildings collapse and with them his business, it does hurt him, even if he himself doesn't get hurt, but even that's no longer out of the question since he is the target.
See the difference, and why one is important and the other one isn't?
Parent